PcM Question 7 & 10
Q10 - I have consulted someone who works in a law firm, 2 people in HR positions from two different work places, a restaurant general manager, an engineer principal, and an architecture principal, my collogues I work with in a small firm, and my architectural mentor. The answer to this question among individual consensus, from what is practiced in various management positions say B is not the correct answer, or what is practiced in the large to small corporations to keep them from a lawsuit or what is advised from upper management to lower management. Please advise.
Q7 - Wouldn't placing a time limit on sexual harassment with a person who is on the fence about saying something hinder them from actually saying something? Also, the question is asking about discrimination and harassment. But the answer is C which only speaks to the harassment and not the discrimination. Answer B speaks to both discrimination and harassment because if I am not able to take off work for my religious holiday, it can be construed as harassment or hostile work environment or a condition of employment if I do not show up to work. I disagree with your answer C. Please help me understand what I am missing here.
Rebecca - I struggled with the very same two questions, and I did exactly what you did: asked licensed colleagues and mentors for insight. They said the same thing as your colleagues and mentors. I made a “note to self” about ncarb’s interpretation in the unlikely event the same or similar questions appeared on my actual exams and just moved on. I don’t know if that really helps you, but at least you know you’re not the only candidate who disagreed with ncarb’s take.
Christine - Thank you for your insight and comments. I would answer A to question 10 in hindsight, but never B. And that has been my knowledge since working in hotel and restaurants a good portion of my adult life (not as a design professional) and all the other individuals I asked today about the question. Hopefully NCARB will drop in their own comments in this section like they have with other questions asked in the blog today.
For question 7, the item writer was referencing a specific regulation from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from the Department of Labor regarding time limits for filing a charge. These time limits relate to both harassment and discrimination claims. Even though the response just lists harassment, both would apply to this policy. There is however ambiguity in response B that could also make it correct since the requirements for providing reasonable accommodations for workers religious holidays varies by company size and state laws.
For question 10, the rationale is to prevent a possible negligent referral claim against the former employer if the new employer hires the individual and harassment occurs. Since the harassment incidents are noted as being well documented, the firm would be at a higher risk of the negligent referral claim than they would of a defamation claim.
For both of these items I've flagged them for review by our item writing volunteer architects. They will take a look at the comments brought up here and incorporate any updates on a future version of the practice exam.
I flagged these two questions for the same reasons as the other commenters here and reached out to my mentors with experience in this area. All were surprised by NCARB’s wording and justification. Too much room for interpretation on these. Not to mention a misleading and troubling message implied by the answer to 7! Doesn’t the EEOC regulation establish the time limit, not the firm? I do hope NCARB reconsiders and updates the wording.
I came here to dispute these very same two questions. I find question 7 especially troubling and I see how the question is over both "discrimination and harassment" yet the "correct answer" specifically discusses the time limit on sexual harassment. Thank you NCARB for flagging these questions for review, as I believe this policy or any future policies implemented such as this is very harmful and a step backward from discrimination and equality as the implication is not sided with the victim. I have also discussed this with many colleagues who feel the same as I and the others leaving comments. Thank you
When I get a reference request for someone I wouldn’t hire I reply, “I can confirm that he went to school here but decline to elaborate based on the advice of legal counsel” …you didn’t have to share sensitive student or employee information and, unless they are really stupid, the new firm can read between the lines
Please sign in to leave a comment.